Perhaps another way to look at this is who gives you a greater chance for a runner in scoring position (RISP). In the example, above, Trout (32/39) puts a RISP 32 times -- Cabrera does this 3 times. So in terms of giving your team additional chances to score, Trout is + 29; relative to Cabrera, Trout is 9.67 times more likely to put a RISP. Now, of course, putting a RISP and the probability of the RISP scoring is dependent on the rest of the lineup behind the player. Say, for example, Trout and Cabrera are followed by a .300 hitter in the lineup; the probability of Trout or Cabrera producing a run is a function of stolen bases and the average of the guy behind them. So for Trout, we can say the probability of his stolen base turning into a run scored is 29 * .3 = 8.7; Cabrera's probability would be 3 * .3 = 0.9. SO, while Trout produces a much greater likelihood of scoring, the difference between Trout and Cabrera is 8.7 - 0.9 or 7.8 runs spread out over the course of a year.

Now, in sabermetrics, there is a calculation for runs created by stolen bases:

Assuming I didn't muck up the equation of the math, Cabrera's RC with the stolen base effect is 146, and Trout's is 161.
We can also express this per game or as RC/27; for Cabrera this is 5.41 and Trout, 5.96. OF course, since a player averages
about 4.2 at bats, the real effect on average is (RC/27)/4.2, which for Cabrera is 1.29 and for Trout 1.42.

The difference in the stolen base effect can then be determined by comparing Cabrera's and Trout's no-stolen base-adjust RC to their basic RC metric.
For Cabrera, this is 145.6, so the difference in stolen bases for Cabrera is 0.4 RC. For Trout, the effect is 30. That means that at this point in the year, Cabrera has produced 0.4 more runs through steals, while Trout has produced 30 more runs through steals.

As you can see from the stolen base runs created formula, the average base stealing effect is used (.55). This, of course, may vary across players, so that the average may not represent the actual performance of the player.

Say both guys get on base 200 times. One guy reduces his to 150 times by getting caught stealing while adding 100 extra bases. Seems like he's essentially reduced his OBP while increasing his slugging.

Or, when you see a stolen base, do you get all glassy-eyed, with your mouth hanging open with a little drool dripping out the side, as if somebody was dangling a shiny object in front of you.

******* retard.

No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

The rate isn't all that matters. A hitter that goes 1-3 isn't equally as valuable as one that goes 100-300.

For a stolen base attempt to be worth the risk, you need to be able to be successful at least 67ish percent of the time (the rate depends on the league run scoring environment. In the late 90's-early 2000s, the rate was closer to 75%). But there's still a raw value for each stolen base, even if you're below (or at) that rate.

Posted by radlynch on 9/11/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):Perhaps another way to look at this is who gives you a greater chance for a runner in scoring position (RISP). In the example, above, Trout (32/39) puts a RISP 32 times -- Cabrera does this 3 times. So in terms of giving your team additional chances to score, Trout is + 29; relative to Cabrera, Trout is 9.67 times more likely to put a RISP. Now, of course, putting a RISP and the probability of the RISP scoring is dependent on the rest of the lineup behind the player. Say, for example, Trout and Cabrera are followed by a .300 hitter in the lineup; the probability of Trout or Cabrera producing a run is a function of stolen bases and the average of the guy behind them. So for Trout, we can say the probability of his stolen base turning into a run scored is 29 * .3 = 8.7; Cabrera's probability would be 3 * .3 = 0.9. SO, while Trout produces a much greater likelihood of scoring, the difference between Trout and Cabrera is 8.7 - 0.9 or 7.8 runs spread out over the course of a year.

Now, in sabermetrics, there is a calculation for runs created by stolen bases:

Assuming I didn't muck up the equation of the math, Cabrera's RC with the stolen base effect is 146, and Trout's is 161.
We can also express this per game or as RC/27; for Cabrera this is 5.41 and Trout, 5.96. OF course, since a player averages
about 4.2 at bats, the real effect on average is (RC/27)/4.2, which for Cabrera is 1.29 and for Trout 1.42.

The difference in the stolen base effect can then be determined by comparing Cabrera's and Trout's no-stolen base-adjust RC to their basic RC metric.
For Cabrera, this is 145.6, so the difference in stolen bases for Cabrera is 0.4 RC. For Trout, the effect is 30. That means that at this point in the year, Cabrera has produced 0.4 more runs through steals, while Trout has produced 30 more runs through steals.

As you can see from the stolen base runs created formula, the average base stealing effect is used (.55). This, of course, may vary across players, so that the average may not represent the actual performance of the player.

Or, when you see a stolen base, do you get all glassy-eyed, with your mouth hanging open with a little drool dripping out the side, as if somebody was dangling a shiny object in front of you.

******* retard.

No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

The rate isn't all that matters. A hitter that goes 1-3 isn't equally as valuable as one that goes 100-300.

For a stolen base attempt to be worth the risk, you need to be able to be successful at least 67ish percent of the time (the rate depends on the league run scoring environment. In the late 90's-early 2000s, the rate was closer to 75%). But there's still a raw value for each stolen base, even if you're below (or at) that rate.

I think you're both off here. If you're thrown out trying to steal 33% of the time, your stolen bases only make up for the times you're unsuccessful stealing bases; you're basically just as well off doing nothing. Don't eliminate yourself from the base paths.

That said, if you're successful 82% of the time, it's 15% more than the breakeven point. The more often you steal with an 82% rate, the better off. So while getting caught 50 times in 150 attempts is a wash, if you're successful 123 times in 150 attempts, that's fantastic. If you only attempt 20 stolen bases at the 82% rate, it's not as valuable.

Or, when you see a stolen base, do you get all glassy-eyed, with your mouth hanging open with a little drool dripping out the side, as if somebody was dangling a shiny object in front of you.

******* retard.

No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

The rate isn't all that matters. A hitter that goes 1-3 isn't equally as valuable as one that goes 100-300.

For a stolen base attempt to be worth the risk, you need to be able to be successful at least 67ish percent of the time (the rate depends on the league run scoring environment. In the late 90's-early 2000s, the rate was closer to 75%). But there's still a raw value for each stolen base, even if you're below (or at) that rate.

I think you're both off here. If you're thrown out trying to steal 33% of the time, your stolen bases only make up for the times you're successful stealing bases; you're basically just as well off doing nothing. Don't eliminate yourself from the base paths.

That said, if you're successful 82% of the time, it's 15% more than the breakeven point. The more often you steal with an 82% rate, the better off. So while getting caught 50 times in 150 attempts is a wash, if you're successful 123 times in 150 attempts, that's fantastic. If you only attempt 20 stolen bases at the 82% rate, it's not as valuable.

An attempted steal can't only be a net positive. You still need to subtract the decrease in expected runs for every CS. Don't just quote GAINS from stolen bases unless you're willing to also count MINUSES from caught stealing.

That being said, I would guess Trout's baserunning and fielding plusses outweigh Miggy's OPS advantages. However, how truly valuable can a player on a third-place team be? "Oh, Trout is really valuable, the Angels would have finished ONE PLACE LOWER if they didn't have him."

Best hitter - Cabrera
Best player - Trout
Most valuable player - Cabrera

Or, when you see a stolen base, do you get all glassy-eyed, with your mouth hanging open with a little drool dripping out the side, as if somebody was dangling a shiny object in front of you.

******* retard.

No dumbshit, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

The rate isn't all that matters. A hitter that goes 1-3 isn't equally as valuable as one that goes 100-300.

For a stolen base attempt to be worth the risk, you need to be able to be successful at least 67ish percent of the time (the rate depends on the league run scoring environment. In the late 90's-early 2000s, the rate was closer to 75%). But there's still a raw value for each stolen base, even if you're below (or at) that rate.

I think you're both off here. If you're thrown out trying to steal 33% of the time, your stolen bases only make up for the times you're successful stealing bases; you're basically just as well off doing nothing. Don't eliminate yourself from the base paths.

That said, if you're successful 82% of the time, it's 15% more than the breakeven point. The more often you steal with an 82% rate, the better off. So while getting caught 50 times in 150 attempts is a wash, if you're successful 123 times in 150 attempts, that's fantastic. If you only attempt 20 stolen bases at the 82% rate, it's not as valuable.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/11/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):An attempted steal can't only be a net positive. You still need to subtract the decrease in expected runs for every CS. Don't just quote GAINS from stolen bases unless you're willing to also count MINUSES from caught stealing.

That being said, I would guess Trout's baserunning and fielding plusses outweigh Miggy's OPS advantages. However, how truly valuable can a player on a third-place team be? "Oh, Trout is really valuable, the Angels would have finished ONE PLACE LOWER if they didn't have him."

Best hitter - Cabrera
Best player - Trout
Most valuable player - Cabrera

I believe we shouldn't penalize Trout because his team is ******. Two wallets contain money. Wallet A has a $50 bill and several $1 bills. Wallet B has a $20 bill surrounded by $5s. The $50 is still the most valuable bill in either wallet.